Notices
"The 33"-Road Bike Racing We set this forum up for our members to discuss their experiences in either pro or amateur racing, whether they are the big races, or even the small backyard races. Don't forget to update all the members with your own race results.

Ride Clean

Old 10-25-17, 01:44 PM
  #2001  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,474

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times in 253 Posts
Originally Posted by nslckevin
Have you ever raced your bike up Pikes Peak? 10% at 14,000' feet is kind of hard. Especially after an hour plus of racing. I can think of a LOT of different national championship events less deserving stars and strips than that.

Kevin
I don't think it is as deserving as an open RR. Pro RR, U23, 17-18, Collegiate and Cat 1 in that order are all more deserving for the RR events. This is a low key fun event.

I was there this year with the kid doing it (5th in open). It is a mass start RR in that they are not riding for time, which kinda makes me wonder why they post time, but anyway, it is different. Gaimon road with group, then didn't. Son said it was not so painful. He just ran out of air. I expect EPO would have helped on this one, but at the 50% hematocrit levels (not that there was even drug testing) I don't know how much.

It is nothing like traditional road racing where you ride over a hundred miles and then try to win. And it is nothing like a closer to sea level hill climb where you have enough O2 to truly suffer. Like any cycling discipline, if a certain type is your focus, you are going to do better.

Son is about 15lbs heavier than he was a year ago (no fatter), and that was a disadvantage. It was fun. I doubt it will be on the schedule next year unless serious weight loss is in the plan, and it isn't. Getting up that climb faster would likely be a disadvantage for road racing.

To win this, you (he) would have to drop lots of muscle. There is not enough O2 to fuel much more than thin legs and thin upper body. The KOM holder, Leo, is legs and lung.
Phil missed the KOM, but as I stated it was not for time. The top 10 or so were marking each other and reports were when one would try to catch, the other would pick it up. At the end, with Phil gone, they settled into a less painful everyone eyeing each other position. If this were a TT, there would have been more pain and higher speeds IMO, but still not enough O2 to really put most riders into the pain cave (the muscle burn).

Last edited by Doge; 10-25-17 at 01:54 PM.
Doge is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 01:48 PM
  #2002  
tetonrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,449
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 693 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ygduf
I think what TR is saying is that it's essentially stripes for Zwift racing. Hillclimbs are pure w/kg.
actually, while i do agree with your statement i wasn't thinking along those lines when i made the comment that @nslckevin quoted. ("north salt lake city kevin??" ) this was months ago, and i just pulled 'hill climb national championship' out of the air as a representative of any national championship.

if my memory is right, we were talking about the variety of national championships -- and when you add in age groups we have many multiples of national champions.

if i thought about it, i could probably give an opinion on each event, but it wouldn't mean much. i wasn't getting into the worthiness of one event or another at that time. i also don't have any opinion on the winners/participants.

in my own amateur racing, i've trained hard and have driven long hours or flown bikes with the hopes of racing against the best competition available to me in the events that sounded most fun and fit my schedule. sometimes this was provided by USAC national championship events, and other times it was stuff like the Gila. i would have been VERY proud to win; i respect the effort of anyone who trained hard and showed up.

at some point most of us wind up choosing an event we think we can win (or at least be competitive) over one that offers the best competition. it's a reason why a 40-year old cat 1 generally races the 40-44 national championship road race instead of the elite/cat 1 event, although a few certainly do both. we didn't see many, if any, masters cat 1 or 2 riders show up in bend this year to race p/1 or cat 2 when the masters categories were eliminated; instead, most said 'there are no options available for us.'
tetonrider is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 01:52 PM
  #2003  
gsteinb
out walking the earth
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lake Placid, NY
Posts: 21,441
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 912 Post(s)
Liked 752 Times in 342 Posts
Dunno. Though there are plenty of events here with few enough participants that everyone medals though. I wouldn't necessarily pick on hill climbs specifically.

Clearly other countries have masters nationals given the representation at masters worlds.
gsteinb is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 02:09 PM
  #2004  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,474

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times in 253 Posts
Originally Posted by Ygduf
... Hillclimbs are pure w/kg....
Not at these 14K finishes. Sure - physics say w/kg. But on a 10% grade at 1,000ft there is enough O2 to drive bigger legs. At 14K - there is not. The winners might be different.

Trying to stay OT - I see bigger advantage to drugs at altitude than sea level.

Last edited by Doge; 10-25-17 at 02:17 PM.
Doge is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 04:28 PM
  #2005  
scheibo
once a runner
 
scheibo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: bay area
Posts: 511

Bikes: n+1

Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@nslckevin has won umpteen road, track, TT and hill climbing national championships. i think he's probably in the best position to determine what the 'worth' of each of his stars and stripes jerseys. naturally, with this being a forum focused on road racing it makes complete sense that its members would value that jersey more.

i'd probably argue that for most people the Pro RR national title would be the most prestigious (ahead of even the Pro TT). after that, ranking the 17-18 vs. the Cat 1 vs. the Masters 35+ etc is kind of pointless IMO. i'm curious if the amateur national championships jerseys is only an American thing? i don't think it exists back in Canada (presumably because there's only a fraction of as many riders...)

either way, i think any national championships win is kind of a big accomplishment. i don't think it 'degrades' the value of the pro jersey to give it to amateurs. if USAC is using it as a money grab so be it. i dont think the jersey sales are that lucrative anyway.



curious how we got here from drugs?
scheibo is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 04:47 PM
  #2006  
gsteinb
out walking the earth
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lake Placid, NY
Posts: 21,441
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 912 Post(s)
Liked 752 Times in 342 Posts
Britain certainly has master nationals (I saw the results). I assume other countries do...why else would there be worlds?

I could see a case where all that went away, and I can also make a case that they're cool and add value. It doesn't really impact me in any way. Some are clearly of less value, though no doubt wildly meaningful to those who win. Some of the track events are tiny. Fat bike nationals vs hill climb nationals vs 70+ men's pursuit. Comparisons get kind of pointless.
gsteinb is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 05:17 PM
  #2007  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,474

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times in 253 Posts
Originally Posted by scheibo
...

i'd probably argue that for most people the Pro RR national title would be the most prestigious (ahead of even the Pro TT). after that, ranking the 17-18 vs. the Cat 1 vs. the Masters 35+ etc is kind of pointless IMO. ...
If you subscribe to the idea that the UCI determines the importance of the race, then it is the UCI races. Those are also the ones that winning can get you a job cycling, if you like that kind of thing.

Originally Posted by scheibo
curious how we got here from drugs?
I'm with you on that part.
Doge is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 07:39 PM
  #2008  
Ygduf
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Ygduf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 10,978

Bikes: aggressive agreement is what I ride.

Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 967 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Doge
Not at these 14K finishes. Sure - physics say w/kg. But on a 10% grade at 1,000ft there is enough O2 to drive bigger legs. At 14K - there is not. The winners might be different.
what you're describing is w/kg, just under different circumstances.

anyway, idgaf. this is new age "everyone gets a medal" hating. Winning events is hard. Everyone puts in work. Everyone values different results differently. It's the same argument with different words mad-libbed in.
Ygduf is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 07:46 PM
  #2009  
tetonrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,449
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 693 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by gsteinb
Dunno. Though there are plenty of events here with few enough participants that everyone medals though. I wouldn't necessarily pick on hill climbs specifically.
i'm not sure anyone was picking on hill climbs. i know i wasn't. as stated a few posts above, i used the hill climb as an example (i think maybe it had just happened) as part of a larger discussion with @mattm and others weighing in on the variety of national championship opportunities.

at least that's what i remember.

it was months ago, and somehow @nslckevin found that post now and brought it to the top. it wasn't important enough to me search hard for the original and read back the whole discussion leading up to the post he quoted.
tetonrider is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 07:57 PM
  #2010  
tetonrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,449
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 693 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by scheibo
@nslckevin has won umpteen road, track, TT and hill climbing national championships. i think he's probably in the best position to determine what the 'worth' of each of his stars and stripes jerseys.
i think he's probably the only one who could say what they mean to him, but i'm not sure that he is the one who could say, objectively, which one is most difficult for a few reasons:
a) he might have many jerseys or have participated in a bunch of events, but he hasn't done them all.
b) i don't think ANYONE could really make a definitive statement on difficulty. competition varies from year to year, as do courses and even weather conditions. a person who doesn't handle extreme heat as well as another could have a different impression.

what is "hard"? is it suffering like a dog for hours in a break harder than a sprinter using as little energy as possible until the final 150m or using every tactical trick in the book to keep from getting dropped from the lead group? the answer given probably depends on a rider's physiology.

it's subjective and highly personal.


Originally Posted by scheibo
naturally, with this being a forum focused on road racing it makes complete sense that its members would value that jersey more.
has anyone said which is more important? i saw a comment from @Doge that the pro HC -- raced as a RR not an ITT -- was not as worthy as the pro RR, but other than @nslckevin's comment i didn't notice anyone else comment either way. i might have missed it.



Originally Posted by scheibo
either way, i think any national championships win is kind of a big accomplishment.
i respect the training and efforts.

there are some categories and events that draw 1 or 2 participants.

Originally Posted by scheibo
i don't think it 'degrades' the value of the pro jersey to give it to amateurs.
i didn't see that point made. i might have missed it.

Originally Posted by scheibo

if USAC is using it as a money grab so be it. i dont think the jersey sales are that lucrative anyway.
the money grab is knowing that people want to chase the jerseys; therefore, the events as a whole tend to draw higher numbers across all categories collectively, and there is no prize money.

it's not about jersey *sales*.

Originally Posted by scheibo
curious how we got here from drugs?
a months-old post was resurrected, but i'm guessing it was about some amateur doper who won a national championship, and someone commented on how silly that is.
tetonrider is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 09:09 PM
  #2011  
scheibo
once a runner
 
scheibo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: bay area
Posts: 511

Bikes: n+1

Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@tetonrider - great reply, I was definitely strawmanning and i don't really have any rebuttal.

Originally Posted by tetonrider
i respect the training and efforts.

there are some categories and events that draw 1 or 2 participants.
I will argue about this though a bit though... I've definitely noticed this sentiment in this forum that the number of participants in a race somehow matters. All the really matters to me is the number of *good* racers in the race. Some of the time that's because riders don't bother showing up for races they can't win. I imagine most obscure age group championships have like 2-3 really stupidly strong guys plus a couple randoms - yes the field isn't that deep, but the top end still tends to be there. Of course, I'm sure there's also some categories where a savvy competitor who wants a title can find a weak field in an overlooked event and win a championship, but I'd guess this doesnt happen as often. So yeah, perhaps when you see someone wearing a national champs jersey you need to look up the actual results and do some research to see how impressive it was/how it stacks up, but if it was really that easy to win we'd all have one.

@gsteinb As for hill climb champion vs. fat bike vs. pursuit - I think the only think connecting these events is that they happen to involve a bike. They're completely different sports in my mind, its like comparing the steeplechase vs the 400m hurdles vs XC running - they all involve running and jumping over things, theyre all under the same umbrella (in this case 'athletics' as opposed to 'cycling'), but they're apples and oranges. I agree with you that comparisons here are kind of pointless.
scheibo is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 09:18 PM
  #2012  
tetonrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,449
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 693 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by scheibo

I will argue about this though a bit though... I've definitely noticed this sentiment in this forum that the number of participants in a race somehow matters. All the really matters to me is the number of *good* racers in the race.
of course. it is rare to have a both a large and deep field; those races are particularly special for a variety of reasons.

i've traveled hours, repeatedly, to race against a handful of people because i knew the one guy who mattered would be there (this was an ITT and a top, reliable rider provided a useful benchmark regardless of ambient conditions). i get it.

there are MANY people who would rather place higher in a lesser field than get their butt handed to them in a more competitive race. and that's fine because... hobby.

from your history on the forum, it sounds like you come from a competitive athletic background at a fairly high (collegiate?) level. that may not reflect the views of everyone who winds up racing a bike.

also, you can only race who shows up.

Originally Posted by scheibo

Some of the time that's because riders don't bother showing up for races they can't win. I imagine most obscure age group championships have like 2-3 really stupidly strong guys plus a couple randoms - yes the field isn't that deep, but the top end still tends to be there.
in some fields (particularly the very old ones), there are cases where it is literally one or two entrants.

sometimes winning a national championship can be a matter of surviving in the sport long enough (which is not a trivial feat).

Originally Posted by scheibo
I agree with you that comparisons here are kind of pointless.
that was my point, but you then said that some people are more qualified than others to make such comparisons.
tetonrider is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 05:00 AM
  #2013  
gsteinb
out walking the earth
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lake Placid, NY
Posts: 21,441
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 912 Post(s)
Liked 752 Times in 342 Posts
Originally Posted by tetonrider
i'm not sure anyone was picking on hill climbs. i know i wasn't. as stated a few posts above, i used the hill climb as an example (i think maybe it had just happened) as part of a larger discussion with @mattm and others weighing in on the variety of national championship opportunities.
I made a similar point in a later post.

Keep them all, get rid of them all...it doesn't matter to me much. I have a team pursuit medal from track nationals that doesn't mean much to me. If I medaled on a HC podium with Kevin it would be a career moment.

I can say that when I was a young snot we looked down at the 35+ guys. As a 35+ guy I didn't think much of the 45+ racing. 45+ racing is pretty hard now, and my power numbers are as good as ever. Looking forward to flipping the calendar to 55+.

My northeast HC rival doesn't do much else very well but he sure goes up hill as fast as most younger guys. Kinda wish he went out to pike's peak (the altitude would crush me, personally).

I have a friend who places in all the major marathon mountain bike events, he's a hell of a cross country rider, as well as cross. But I'd spank him in I think about any road situation. In fact I think back to the early 90s when I knew loads of top mountain bike guys who were all but useless in any race on the road. They were amazing in the woods, but didn't have the same sort of engine or pack abilities on the road.

Comparing old apples to younger apples? Does a 50-54 guy (or lady) winning a RR deserve a jersey and to keep the stripes on their sleeves? Does it really matter? I'm not sure there's a obvious downside. 1 male and 1 female national champion in each discipline? Sure, I can get behind that...but it sure isn't going to happen and I sort of like the idea that I can win a national title (if they ever end up someplace again I can wrap my head around going to).
gsteinb is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 08:31 AM
  #2014  
furiousferret
Senior Member
 
furiousferret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Redlands, CA
Posts: 6,313
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 842 Post(s)
Liked 469 Times in 250 Posts
The more incentives to keep people racing the better, ultimately the only ones who care about this stuff are other racers. Yeah, two semi competitive racers can team up on a tandem and get stripes but with the sport dwindling, anything that's a carrot and keeps people racing is good.
furiousferret is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 08:54 AM
  #2015  
Heathpack 
Has a magic bike
 
Heathpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,590

Bikes: 2018 Scott Spark, 2015 Fuji Norcom Straight, 2014 BMC GF01, 2013 Trek Madone

Mentioned: 699 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4456 Post(s)
Liked 425 Times in 157 Posts
Originally Posted by furiousferret
The more incentives to keep people racing the better, ultimately the only ones who care about this stuff are other racers. Yeah, two semi competitive racers can team up on a tandem and get stripes but with the sport dwindling, anything that's a carrot and keeps people racing is good.
Totally agree.

Because the message I'm reading in this thread to me as a 51 year old woman who will always race in small fields is: "your successes will always be less meaningful than mine". Because being a 35 year old amateur bike racer is the pinnacle of meaningfulness? Somehow, I'm sure that continental pro racers might feel the same way about US amateur 35 year old bike racers, cat 1 or not.

So if the message y'all want to send to a woman my age (or indeed any woman racing) is: your stuff is less meaningful, that's a disincentive for me to race. My observation from the outside is that half of what drives male bike racers is the sense of respect they feel from their peers. Yet say I go out some day and the women's 50+ National TT, that would be the culmination for me of probably 5 years of training. Meaningless? I guess it wouldn't feel that meaningless to me.

Buy beyond that is the impact on the sport of bike racing. If you're questions whether my race field should even exist and if at my age I'd have zero hope of competing nationally against 20 somethings in an open field, why would I ever buy in to USAC racing?

The logic of these arguments is beyond my understanding. You want a healthy sport? Make opportunities for a broad swath of types to race. You want a dwindling sport? Cater to a narrow subset of humanity.
Heathpack is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 01:34 PM
  #2016  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,474

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times in 253 Posts
Originally Posted by furiousferret
...ultimately the only ones who care about this stuff are other racers. ...
Most places, true. I enjoyed seeing Belgium non-racing, non-relatives be fans.

In an effort to return to topic:
I was wondering if the most important events have the most banned PED use, but as PEDs would be more beneficial to some events than others, hard to say.
Doge is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 04:41 PM
  #2017  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,474

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times in 253 Posts
Originally Posted by tetonrider
...
has anyone said which is more important? i saw a comment from @Doge that the pro HC -- raced as a RR not an ITT -- was not as worthy* as the pro RR, but other than @nslckevin's comment i didn't notice anyone else comment either way. i might have missed it.
...
Some overlap on the Wattercooler thread. Group riders by speed, not "category".

Some (the two I've seen) HC races are road races... And therefore comparing times from different groups, on Strava or otherwise makes little sense. Pikes Peak - Daniel was marking his guy and planning to pass on a decent (there was one), then do an out of the saddle attack and hold the gap. That is what was done. As PP did not allow us to drive and film, I only have reports. Maybe other HCs are TTs. The 2 I've been to were not.

Here is one I could video with many of the same top 10 as PP, in different order of finish. It was cat and mouse most the way, then at the end, leaders solo.

*I'm not going to hit the Worthy part other than re-stating that reducing O2 a lot changes things a lot. It is very unlike other races and it is less painful than a lower altitude race as reported by others. It took very little to recover from as there was not enough O2 to drive the body to any extreme. Daniel was in a parade and marching 3-4 hours the day before and doing survival training the week before. Normally that would have mattered a whole bunch. I don't know if it mattered at all - maybe a place based on where 4th was. Without going into detail, the lower altitude performance is different when the same riders show up. PP favors lower mass riders. Some of these same riders are dropped quickly at lower altitude. The KOM holder is older now, but generally not in the front group in the lower 7,000ft rides. That has nothing to do with who is and who is not worthy, rather, it depends. And Pikes Peak is unique in all the world as a Road Race.
Doge is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 04:45 PM
  #2018  
gsteinb
out walking the earth
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lake Placid, NY
Posts: 21,441
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 912 Post(s)
Liked 752 Times in 342 Posts
Some HCs are TTs. 4 in the northeast, at least, that I can think of.
gsteinb is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 05:55 PM
  #2019  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,474

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times in 253 Posts
Originally Posted by gsteinb
Some HCs are TTs. 4 in the northeast, at least, that I can think of.
I don't really have an opinion on either as to worthiness.

I think a TT is physically harder. I'd prefer TTs because folks always compare times anyway, so might as well have it a TT. Race craft part, is rather minimal, but they're in a RR even at 11,000ft. A TT has little to none of that.

The Palomar Strava ride going after Phil's time (the 1st one, not the 2nd) was a lot harder that the nats HC as reported by my rider. I expect that was because as stated, 6,000 ft Palomar is a lot different than 14,000 Pikes Peak.

A RR on Palomar is more interesting. ToC did that. I forgot which direction, but they are not near the top solo times, where Independence Pass US Pro Tour riders have all the best numbers.

Pikes Peak was super fun to be at and the weather was great. But it is so different than anything I just don't see the point. I mean junior got a podium and all, but it is not the same thing IMO as a masters nats championship let alone a USA UCI race.

I'd be surprised if any racer watching on location the M17-18 / U23 RR didn't think they were the pinnacle of USA cycling. For women, it is a different age, the olders are the more interesting and faster riders. Which has alway been interesting to me as women mature earlier, but few teen women can compete with the 30 year olds in a RR. Except Megan Jestrab.
Doge is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 06:49 PM
  #2020  
furiousferret
Senior Member
 
furiousferret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Redlands, CA
Posts: 6,313
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 842 Post(s)
Liked 469 Times in 250 Posts
Pike's Peak is next level, that and the peaks in Hawaii should be Above the Above Category, or Ludicrous Category.
furiousferret is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 09:26 PM
  #2021  
tetonrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,449
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 693 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathpack

Because the message I'm reading in this thread to me as a 51 year old woman who will always race in small fields is: "your successes will always be less meaningful than mine". Because being a 35 year old amateur bike racer is the pinnacle of meaningfulness? Somehow, I'm sure that continental pro racers might feel the same way about US amateur 35 year old bike racers, cat 1 or not.
if you've been around bike racers long enough, they tend to magnify very tiny differences (e.g., the difference between a cat 3 & cat 2 is often very small) in order to seem more important.

if you're in a mixed-field race and there's a crash, it's ALWAYS the lesser category rider's fault. doesn't matter if it is 4/5, 3/4, 1/2, or even p1. while i have never done a race, i've been told by a friend who did ride the tour of california that the international pros hate on the domestic pros.

it's silly, but when people are more similar than they are different they fight over minimal or non-existent differences.

sad.

Originally Posted by heathpack

So if the message y'all want to send to a woman my age (or indeed any woman racing) is: your stuff is less meaningful, that's a disincentive for me to race. My observation from the outside is that half of what drives male bike racers is the sense of respect they feel from their peers. Yet say I go out some day and the women's 50+ National TT, that would be the culmination for me of probably 5 years of training. Meaningless? I guess it wouldn't feel that meaningless to me.
not sure on the message, but i'd say if anyone is doing this for external accolades, they *probably* have a short life in the sport. now, there are some that make a career out of winning their events (masters or otherwise, doesn't really matter; it's amateur stuff and a hobby for the VAST majority) and get a TON of accolades for it; we've all seen the fawning.

for the majority, wins are rare, and therefore the reasons to do it need to be much more intrinsic.

as a male masters-age racer, i don't think i'd say i do it for the respect of my peers -- i just generally enjoy training, races give me a goal, and i like good competition (+camaraderie of my friends and competitors). i could not say whether you, as a female masters racer, are speaking for a majority of male racers.


Buy beyond that is the impact on the sport of bike racing. If you're questions whether my race field should even exist and if at my age I'd have zero hope of competing nationally against 20 somethings in an open field, why would I ever buy in to USAC racing?

The logic of these arguments is beyond my understanding. You want a healthy sport? Make opportunities for a broad swath of types to race. You want a dwindling sport? Cater to a narrow subset of humanity.[/QUOTE]

there ARE lots of opportunities to race, particularly in places like southern california. some might say there are too many (cannibalization and/or 10h of events with small fields). ironically, this can lead to the death of a sport albeit in a different way.

i'm sure you can agree that at some point splitting up fields so that everyone can feel competitive is silly. should there be a crit national championship for males 43-44 born in november? no, of course not.

M40-44 born in november?

M40-44?

M40-49?

M35+?

a Cat 4 National Champion road racer? what about one that doesn't have the points already to upgrade to Cat 3?

your answers to those questions may be different from those of someone else. who is right? who cares?

i think the important part of that is that inherently, whether they admit it or not, everyone draws A line somewhere.

if you worked for 5 years to win your ITT national championship, and your first-year-competitor friend who is 5 years old won his/her field because there was a traffic accident on the freeway that mean s/he was the only one to show up, would it trouble you if they ran around town saying that you two were the same?

it *shouldn't* bother you, but it might.

your hypothetical accomplishment in the first part of your post should not be meaningless to you -- but NOT because other people think it has meaning.

for the record, i think there might be a distinction between fields available in an office park crit and a national championship. that said, the governing body believes (rightly so) that more people will register for a national championship event when you cut the age groups more finely than for any other event of the year.

i've paid more than my share of $$ to enter those fields, so clearly i support it; i've also entered plenty of races which i had no chance of winning, got my butt kicked, but managed not to feel meaningless.

is winning an amateur national championship meaningless? is cycling meaningless? is collecting stamps meaningless? the answer is both yes AND no.
tetonrider is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 09:28 PM
  #2022  
tetonrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,449
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 693 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by gsteinb
Some HCs are TTs. 4 in the northeast, at least, that I can think of.
yep. some are mass start and some are pursuit style, even in stage races i've done across the country.

both are interesting to me, and they may demand different tactics on a given day.

switching from one style of start to another can COMPLETELY change the nature of a climb and the likely winner.

fun stuff.
tetonrider is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 10:35 PM
  #2023  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,474

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times in 253 Posts
Originally Posted by tetonrider
...
has anyone said which is more important? i saw a comment from @Doge that the pro HC -- raced as a RR not an ITT -- was not as worthy* as the pro RR, but other than @nslckevin's comment i didn't notice anyone else comment either way. i might have missed it.
...
Originally Posted by furiousferret
Pike's Peak is next level, that and the peaks in Hawaii should be Above the Above Category, or Ludicrous Category.
Some other data kinda interesting - a worthy argument.
PP was going on in the same area and time as the Colorado Classic. There was severe overlap. I expect many, of those CC riders would have changed the leader board quite a bit if they had done the PP climb. If the CC occurred during the nats U23, my opinion is U23 results would not be different. I expect those that qualified (U23) would choose the U23 over the Colorado Classic, and it would be as it is now. I don't know of a U23 USA pro that missed the U23 nats RR, except Adrian, who was taking a break.


On the other side I think the PP HC is the only open road National Championship. No other NC has P123 (4,5?) in the same mass start race. That is something. Even the U23, don't have the older pros to deal with, although I've made it clear I think the USA pro talent is in the U23.

Last edited by Doge; 10-26-17 at 10:40 PM.
Doge is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 11:13 PM
  #2024  
Heathpack 
Has a magic bike
 
Heathpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,590

Bikes: 2018 Scott Spark, 2015 Fuji Norcom Straight, 2014 BMC GF01, 2013 Trek Madone

Mentioned: 699 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4456 Post(s)
Liked 425 Times in 157 Posts
Originally Posted by tetonrider
i'm sure you can agree that at some point splitting up fields so that everyone can feel competitive is silly. should there be a crit national championship for males 43-44 born in november? no, of course not.

M40-44 born in november?

...if you worked for 5 years to win your ITT national championship, and your first-year-competitor friend who is 5 years old won his/her field because there was a traffic accident on the freeway that mean s/he was the only one to show up, would it trouble you if they ran around town saying that you two were the same?

it *shouldn't* bother you, but it might.

.
If we're going to talk about silliness, your example of parsing race categories down to M40-44 born in November is a great example of such.

Race categories are created because there are real physiologic (and I guess, in the case of RR and crits, experience) differences between people of different ages and genders. As I'm sure you know, there available science to support the differences by age and gender and this is the basis of the splits in racing classes by age & gender. Of course there's always going to be some sense of arbitrariness in any scale that is discrete when the differences are in fact analog. But there's a basis for it that is not simply a matter of "let's create more opportunities for people to win jerseys so that we can give these things away".

The flip side of that is because of this obsession with the idea that bigger fields are more meaningful, women frequently race TTs in a open category. So how does a 29 year old racing 10 other women who are all 50+ make that 29 year old's win more meaningful? Does Amber Nebens win over me make her win more meaningful than it would be if you separated the pros out from the amateur newby racers?

IMO these wins become less meaningful and the thing you race for in these fields is some kind on intrinsic win- a PR or a power PR or just executing it perfectly. Which is fine, but we all know the point of racing is to actually try to win. Creating fields where the physiology means that some people essentially can't win without some kind of act of god? Sorry that just feels way less meaningful to me than letting go of this arbitrary concept that unless there's 10 people or 6 people or whatever number you want to make up the race doesn't really count.

As to how I would feel if I trained for 5 years to win some race and then the next guy came along and won his/her race easily in an easy field? I honestly can't say that it would bother me at all or diminish my sense of accomplishment. If I knew my own field was weak, it would diminish my sense of accomplishment somewhat. But I'd still be happy with it- because that's bike racing. You can't control who else shows up or getting a day or venue that favors you over your competitors. But you can control whether you're there with your **** together prepared and ready to race. If just doing that is enough for the win, well that's the only part of it that's in my control, so that's all I can really worry myself with.

Last edited by Heathpack; 10-26-17 at 11:22 PM.
Heathpack is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 11:41 PM
  #2025  
tetonrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,449
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 693 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathpack
If we're going to talk about silliness, your example of parsing race categories down to M40-44 born in November is a great example of such.
that's the point. at some point you think it is silly. someone might thing M43-44 November is the line, someone else might thing M40-44. it's arbitrary and at least somewhat personal.

Originally Posted by heathpack
Race categories are created because there are real physiologic (and I guess, in the case of RR and crits, experience) differences between people of different ages and genders.
honestly, i hear lots of *anecdotes*, but i haven't seen much science on this. i'll hear things like "once you're giving up 10 years to another rider, that's a real performance gap."

really? is it 10 years and not 5? is it 10 and not 15? is it 10 and not 7.5?

some 50yo riders kick the butts of some 20yo riders.

arbitrary.

Originally Posted by heathpack
Of course there's always going to be some sense of arbitrariness in any scale that is discrete when the differences are in fact analog. But there's a basis for it that is not simply a matter of "let's create more opportunities for people to win jerseys so that we can give these things away".
i respect your point of view and the discussion.

that said, the differences are not analog. they vary to some degree based on age (there's a difference between an 18yo and an 80yo and a 24yo and a 74yo, but is there much of one between a 40 & 46yo? maybe. (and maybe is the point.)

and i'd argue that the differences are influenced to a large(r) degree by factors such as genetics and training over the n years prior.

for instance, the commonly-held belief that VO2max decreases at a drastic rate is based on looking at large groups of people who, by and large, stop doing anything related to VO2max. those who do keep it up show substantially slower decline. do we go by the physiological differences between sedentary population, or do we go by an athletic population to decide when it matters? do we differentiate between those who do VO2max work vs those that decide it's time to quit all that and just 'go longer'?

not attacking you here, just posing a thought experiment.

Originally Posted by heathpack
The flip side of that is because of this obsession with the idea that bigger fields are more meaningful
earlier i posed a hypothetical situation (which actually has happened) where there is one competitor in a national championship age group. from there the conversation somehow morphed to 'bigger fields matter more'; i'll play along, but that's not something i ever intended to say (nor do i think i said it).

Originally Posted by heathpack
, women frequently race TTs in a open category. So how does a 29 year old racing 10 other women who are all 50+ make that 29 year old's win more meaningful?
i never made that statement. generally speaking, a 29yo who hasn't made it to the professional ranks is doing this as a hobby (whether they realize it or not), so i think nothing separates the 29yo from the 50+ yo in any practical terms of "meaning" for amateur competition.

Originally Posted by heathpack
Does Amber Nebens win over me make her win more meaningful than it would be if you separated the pros out from the amateur newby racers?
well, i think that's probably a poor example to use a professional, but, i'm going to guess at no time would your participation in an event that included amber neben or anyone paid to ride his/her bike have any positive impact on the meaning they attach to a race result.

actually, i'd probably bet a few $ that if an even is somehow open to professionals at the top of their sport (e.g., Tony Martin) *and* somehow also open to amateur riders like you, me or any cat 1, that pro probably doesn't consider the event worth all that much. they're likely gunning for stuff like AToC, TdF, UCI World Champs, etc.

IOW, the fact that you (or i) were there would be a negative.



Originally Posted by heathpack
IMO these wins become less meaningful and the thing you race for in these fields is some kind on intrinsic win- a PR or a power PR or just executing it perfectly.
that's my point.

Originally Posted by heathpack
Which is fine, but we all know the point of racing is to actually try to win. Creating fields where the physiology means that some people essentially can't win without some kind of act of god? Sorry that just feels way less meaningful to me than letting go of this arbitrary concept that unless there's 10 people or 6 people or whatever number you want to make up the race doesn't really count.
this stuff is never fair, though. @Doge has commented countless times how juniors are, in fact, penalized while racing adults.

sometimes the UCI world championship ITT includes a significant hill that eliminates the traditional flat TTers from contention.

occasionally a racer who was born late in a year gets bumped to M45-49 instead of M40-44 (even though they are 44yo at the time of competition), and their time was good enough to beat all the 40-44yo's.

or what if the split is 41-45/46-50 instead of 40-44/45-49? there could be different outcomes.

again, it's arbitrary.

it's cool with me, i'm just riffing on the fact that it is arbitrary and some of the arguments used to split up the groups are a little ... thin.

Originally Posted by heathpack

As to how I would feel if I trained for 5 years to win some race and then the next guy came along and won his/her race easily in an easy field?
that wasn't the question i asked; the key part is that individual is taking great pains to tell you how they just did the same thing you did, with far less training (none in my hypothetical) and in a field that had no competition due to external issue.

my *guess* (based on human nature) is that you'd be at least a LEEEEEETLE perturbed. how could you not?

but therein lies the issue: if you answer that you are just a teeny, tiny bit bothered, it's an indicator that you judge fields based on field size, quality of competition, etc.

it's natural, just as it is natural to assume that anything *we* do is a little tougher or holds just a bit more meaning than what others do.

"in my day, i used to have to walk to school in a blizzard, and it was uphill both ways..."

Originally Posted by heathpack
I honestly can't say that it would bother me at all or diminish my sense of accomplishment. If I knew my own field was weak, it would diminish my sense of accomplishment somewhat. But I'd still be happy with it- because that's bike racing. You can't control who else shows up or getting a day or venue that favors you over your competitors. But you can control whether you're there with your shot together prepared and ready to race. If just doing that is enough for the win, well that's the only part of it that's in my control, so that's all I can really worry myself with.
totally agree. again, that wasn't the question that was asked. i made the point earlier that you can only race who shows up, and if the "top gun" has the flu that day, well maybe they would not have won anyway, or maybe their preparation was poor, or, or, or. Or even if they missed the start due to traffic, unfortunately getting ourselves to the starting line is still a part of (amateur) competition.

i suspect we probably agree more than disagree, and i'm just writing a bunch of words because i find that any argument to define anything other than pretty broad categories to come down to peoples' opinions on where lines should be drawn more than any fact.

the answer "because that's what USAC says the lines are" is totally cool to me, and it's what i abide. it's still silly, though.
tetonrider is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.